Stupid new laws

In short, the government want to keep tabs (i.e, do police checks) on [u:0c65fd614a]anyone[/u:0c65fd614a] who regularly drives children about for sport or social clubs - blanketing everyone with a 'guilty before proven innocent' tag. This law comes into force in Northern Ireland, England and Wales next month.

Does anyone else have any thoughts? It doesn't even really affect me, but I think it's feckin crazy. It just seems to be another nanny-like law in a long list of ridiculous proposals which seem to erode freedoms and tell us how to live!

Oh noes deyvmeks a law that might mildly inconvenience middle class mothers whilst at the same time imprisoning t
the children of asylum seekers and dropping huge bombs on afghan citizens who don't even know what Taliban mean! Oh fucking noes

But the first thing I thought when I saw this on the news, is that if it stops even a handful of kids being abused or taken away and chopped up, then surely its worth it. Nobody should have to go through that, and I've no objection to any law that helps prevent it.

[quote:1daef32b3c="TheNightMonkey"]another nanny-like law in a long list of ridiculous proposals which seem to erode freedoms and tell us how to live![/quote:1daef32b3c]It's only telling you how to live in a &quot;if you're a peadophile we won't let you drive kids around all the time&quot; sort of way

I wonder if he person who started his thread has ever had a family member sexually abused or worse abducted by these sickos. The devestation it causes to someones life cannot be charted. Thats their life ruined there for the rest of their days.
Everyone is deserved of innocence. I mean your forgetting how organised some paedo rings are with information passing etc etc.

Dont forget child molesters like to be in these wee driving kiddies about clubs. Of course there is a lot of people who arent molesters and just enjoy what they do but im sure given their love of seeing the youngsters happy and safe that they wont mind at all their past being looked into.

I wouldnt. Only people who would certainly mind are people with skeleons rattling in their cupboards.

[quote:c455356693="TheNightMonkey"]It doesn't even really affect me, but I think it's feckin crazy.[/quote:c455356693]You're right there. But you have to understand how the current government works. They're always driven to &quot;do something&quot; to meet the concerns of the public, even if the concerns are misplaced or misinformed (e.g. acquired by reading the Daily Mail).

The probability of a volunteer being a cunning paedophile is tiny. You'd literally be more likely to win the lottery. Requiring personal checks on a huge number of people so that you can [b:c455356693]maybe[/b:c455356693] reduce the probability a tiny bit more is hugely out of proportion. It makes no logical sense at all. Yet because we're stuck with a government which is tossed by the winds of the media and has no actual principles or capacity to work from logic, we get stupid new laws all the time.

At election time, they can say &quot;we brought in a new law to check for paedophiles&quot; and dodge the question &quot;well, did it work?&quot;.

Yet another hysterical reaction to a tiny problem. The PC brigade strike another blow against common sense. Sure, child abuse is wrong, wrong, wrong but before anyone goes saying that I'm talking out my arse, yes, I have been affected by something similar. So, where do we stop?

Next up, men must have their knobs clamped in iron unless they've passed a morality test because a tiny minority have raped women? Get a fucking grip.

[quote:3c5514f51d="tinpot anto"]Oh noes deyvmeks a law that might mildly inconvenience middle class mothers whilst at the same time imprisoning t
the children of asylum seekers and dropping huge bombs on afghan citizens who don't even know what Taliban mean! Oh fucking noes[/quote:3c5514f51d]

Ipswich Town 1 Relevance nil

Did your mates da never give you a lift anywhere?, did yours? I was out gigging at 15 and the band were ferried around by a rotation of parents, that is covered by this too, and its a bit more that &quot;it only affects the Hillsborough tractor drivers&quot; Any kid involved in sports, music, clubs, after school activities, church groups etc etc etc rely,s on volunteers to cart them around. Its no massive outlay (£30) but it takes 6 - 8 weeks to come through, so try telling little Jimmy that he cant play ball, go on a school trip, or in my case at the time, do a gig, for two months because the coach/leader/parent has to proove that he/she is not a perv.. What this is is another step towards an oppressive governments free reign on our liberties, and you have already highlighted what an oppressive ruling party can lead too..especially when foreign regimes get involved.

Ok, I'd written that after having a few last night, and felt like a rant. On reading again i apologise if it seems a bit on the insensitive side. I'm just interested to see what others think.

I agree there's a need for child protection laws yes, but is it not starting to cross a line? There just seem to be more and more of these 'checks' coming in, to an extent where people who would normally volunteer are just getting bogged down in so much red tape that they go 'feck it, why bother?'. I know many people who are on the brink of going this way!

I was drunk there. Recycled alien is exactly right. This government is a shambolic mess reacting to any public concern with ridiculous sycophantic crap like this. My point is that they are currently doing a hell of a lot worse than police checks this is an indicator that our liberty is at risk but a lot of people in the uk have no liberty at all thanks to similar policy making ALREADY

In my distant past as a kid who went to youth clubs and gigs and all sorts of crap it was always parents of those involved who gave the lifts.

I dont recall a wierd bloke with a funny moustache and 'elvis' glasses who was a bit weird who volunteered to give any one lifts...

Of course I make light of a serious subject, but I think this is PC gone too far. I would love to know what the percentage of convicted paedos have actually got kids is. My sister in law has written books on this subject and works up in QUB so i ought to ask her... But i'd imagine that its pretty low.

It pisses me off a bit that you cant be a bloke under 40 and like kids or be interested in children without the suspicion that your some sort of sick paedo... a lot of you guys have kids and know what i mean. It wasn't until my son was born this year (and i had him with me) that people werent suspicious of me being a paedo if i smiled back at a kid who was looking at me...

If I offered to take ryan jr to a gig with his mates (and i hope its not too far away)but I wasnt allowed to because they have this suspicion then i'd be put off volunteering or helping out..I have nothing to hide but I dont like the threat that its guilty until proven innocent.

I don't really give a ballix about this, but can someone tell me how it's &quot;PC gone too far&quot;? That's twice somebody's said that, and I don't get it. How is it political correctness? Yous have lost me.

I think some are confusing 'PC' with 'increasing state interference', both of which are regarded BY BAD, BAD PEOPLE (probably middle class [i:d2afc962c5]and [/i:d2afc962c5]paedophiles), as two sides of the current New Labour governmental coin, as it were.

[quote:538d4917ac="fletch_belfast"]I really don't like children, or young people in general.

But the first thing I thought when I saw this on the news, is that if it stops even a handful of kids being abused or taken away and chopped up, then surely its worth it. Nobody should have to go through that, and I've no objection to any law that helps prevent it.

It's a start, at least.[/quote:538d4917ac]

How often do kids get taken away and chopped up? And how would this law prevent it happening?

[quote:c6f6b9c104="myspace.com/eleventhnote"]hahaha....this has to be the funniest thread ever...like not the peado bit, thats not so funny...but like some of the comments...i particularly enjoyed the airtight container one LOLage[/quote:c6f6b9c104]

Well John Cleese always did write great material.

I like the way they want to ban alcohol advertising next.
After they managed to stictch up the smokers, I always knew booze would be next.
After that it will be chocolate, mark my words!
Finally, by 2017, they'll ban poo-poos.

[quote:3956364a76="feline1"]After they managed to stictch up the smokers, I always knew booze would be next.[/quote:3956364a76]
Yes, but it worked, didn't it!
[quote:3956364a76]THE ban on public smoking in Britain has caused a fall in heart attack rates of about 10per cent, researchers have found.[/quote:3956364a76]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26067037-23289,00.html

I have worked in Youth Clubs before (not volunteered) and as a youth worker for &quot;at risk&quot; young people at drop ins across belfast. I am a qualified youth worker. I have also worked in schools etc as a part time teacher.

I applaud any effort to help increase the safety of our kids (indeed I am a father myself).

Laws like this are unworkable for a large amount of situations.

IMO We need to look at the stats, and take a more targeted approach, that is if we really want to reduce the amount of abuse that does go on. On the other hand this sort of thing generates good soundbites etc You cannot help wondering that if the money spent on this was spent on training teachers, youth workers etc to spot signs of abuse if that would stop or uncover more cases...

As is, if I wanted to (say for example) go into my Son's primary school class and speak about the wonders of computers and corporate rock I would need vetted. This would take weeks. I would expect this perhaps if someone were to be allowed to spend a few hours in a locked room with a pile of kiddies - but not if you are heading to make a speech in front of 30 kids and 2 teachers. The system is unworkable IMO and will do massive damage to voluteerism etc etc

As anyone who has been to &quot;child safety&quot; training will know, the main aspects covered include how to cover your own ass against false accusations - things like NEVER being alone with a child, ALWAYS having open doors when there are only a few kids etc - all to minimise the risk of ickle Jonny calling your a pedo and ruining your life. That's all it takes. Accusation. You. are. fucked. Even if Jonny admits later that he made it all up.

I think I had a point at the beginning but TBH I'm fed up talking about this having had more than a few discussions about it in recent days.

I've found it vaguely amusing that the same elements of the press (and, I suppose, by extension, their audience) that have screamed loudest and longest about the paedos behind every hedge and lurking in every home where the first to scream about how horrid these new laws are. Make up your fucking minds.

I have also particularly enjoyed the notion oft propagated that this screening shouldn't apply to &quot;decent people&quot; or whatever the preferred phrase is. Clearly, if such selective measures were indeed possible, we wouldn't need to screen anyone at all, because we'd already know.

Other than that, the law is a little bit of a pain in the arse, but if it saves one child the same, well...

(Oh, and for fuck's sake. &quot;Political Correctness&quot; is not code for &quot;stuff I don't like&quot;. Words have meanings. learn them. use them)